While Sunday is always a“ feast day” as others have……

The House voted to approve a new ‘hate crimes’ law named after Matthew Shepard. The bill has been introduced in the Senate but a vote is not yet scheduled. President Obama said he would sign the bill if it makes it to his desk. The law wo….

Hate crimes law violates Constitution in two ways

AOL Hot Seat Poll: Do you support hate-crimes legislation?

But this is really an endless loop, and that particular effort underscores Jazz Shaw’s point
about the 14th Amendment. Let me……

I understand that you need to move on from this thread and as I said in my original post I don't think you're homophobic or racist, etc. I am more than happy to have this disagreement with you- I see that you (and most, if not all, other commenters on here) do want what's best for everyone. Your intent is in the right place and you have goodwill towards all. And I think that counts way more than any anti-hate law. That's very good to see because at the end of the day it's the good examples we all set or strive for which lead to a moral, civil and just society. Thanks again!

With that said, how far does the government's resonsibility go toward ensuring equality for all, right down to the fine grain of daily interactions between each of hundreds of millions of individuals? If we have laws in place which make discrimination illegal and even amend our constitution to declare that every citizen must have the same rights, privileges and protections, how much further can the law go? I hope you understand at least why some people are bothered by the idea of additional resources, rights and protections being assigned to certain sub-groups of the larger society even if they have been historically denied many rights.

I also want to add that I think everyone on here (or most people) believe that gays, blacks, or whatever minority group in question should be treated fairly. This is an important point to remember in a couple paragraphs….

I think we need hate crime laws because throughout the centuries intimidation and violence have been used as a tool of oppression. As a way to keep others from gaining “first class” status.

I think the best example would be the history of African-Americans in this country. Many started off as slaves, with few or no rights. After our Civil War people who did not like blacks used every means at their disposal to keep blacks from gaining power and the full rights of citizens, whether it is voting rights, marriage rights or what have you. Whites (primarily) used religion, violence, laws, the US Constitution, socially ostracized blacks, etc. to keep them as second class citizens.

Today African-Americans are equal citizens in the eyes of the law, but not in the eyes of man. (Or at least many men- the racists.) Just as today gays are second class citizens in the eyes of the law and the eyes of men. The majority has even taken away the right for gays to marry in California- a very oppressive maneuver which further enforces the idea that gays are worth less as humans than straights.

As far as various tactics used to oppress a group of people: violence, religion, laws, social standing, etc. They all go hand in hand. Gays in this country are second class citizens. If you don't believe me then I just have to point out that we don't have the same rights as straights do. This is the piece missing in this debate. Many of you (not all) assume that gays (and blacks, etc.) are equal citizens. But these “protected classes” of people are second class citizens (some more so than others).

I want to be careful what I say here…. I have commented on here before that I don't have a problem with homophobes, as long as they don't tell me what I can or can not do. If you're a guy and don't believe in homosexual acts, then don't sleep with another guy.

A good example of the distinction I make between homophobes and their actions is probably the flap over Rick Warren being selected to be part of Obama's inauguration ceremonies. Most people were against him because he was anti-gay. But that's not what bothered me. I don't care what his personal beliefs are. What I was (and still am) incensed about is the fact that he supported Proposition 8, which took away the rights for same-sex couples to marry. He is telling me who I can and can not marry and does not respect me as an individual nor does he feel that I am an equal citizen under the US Constitution.

So I don't care what Rick Warren personally believes about gays and lesbians, but I do care very much that he lacks respect towards his fellow human beings and citizens of this country.

I don't believe that Rick Warren would ever condone violence against gays and lesbians. But his actions as a religious leader are oppressive towards a group of people who are discriminated against in housing, jobs, law, etc. Indirectly his actions do support and empower those people who DO believe in violence against gays and lesbians (and other minority groups).

These violent bigots (for lack of a better term) look around them and see that others, including the legal system, treat gays, lesbians, etc. as second class citizens. These people feel that they are superior and have society behind them when they attack gays or other minorities.

I mean what else would they think if church leaders, politicians, businesses, the government (and law) all treat gays and as second class citizens, without all the human rights and rights of other citizens of this country enjoy?

So these attackers feel that they are justified in treating minorities as second class citizens and they feel that they are on the right side of the issue.

These attackers attack and intimidate minorities as a way to have power over minorities and keep them oppressed and “in their place.”

So there is a whole list of actions that this country does to keep certain minorities oppressed and I think gays and lesbians, by having their rights taken away from them are perhaps (though I'm open to that and there is some geographic distinctions) the most oppressed group nationally at the moment.

So I think we need the force of law to come down on the side of second class citizens to let bigots know that it is unacceptable to dehumanize people, oppress, intimidate or otherwise dehumanize fellow citizens. Our country was founded to support the rights of its citizens and treat all citizens as humans. There is no place in the US for second-class citizens, oppression, violence, etc. against a group of people simply because one dislikes them. And the fact is that many minorities, including gays are second class citizens in this country and continue to be oppressed through the same tried and true methods that have kept second class citizens “in their place” for centuries.

As he was released from custody, the wrongly accused husband was heard to complain about how bogus hypotheticals are as the basis of serious argument.

have a good night, and I appreciate the discussion.

thanks

I think we'll have to agree to disagree as I'm going to bed shortly. I agree that a person who punches somebody in the nose should get a bigger fine than somebody who doesn't punch anyone. If two people punch somebody in the nose, I don't think one should get a stiffer penalty for what he was thinking or his ingrained prejudices. But, again, I think I understand why you don't feel that way.

“Are motive and intent in play when examining these different crimes? Of course! They are not only useful in locating the proper suspect, but in defining which crime was committed!”

The crime is murder, the degree is used to define the crime. Am I mis-representing your words in some way? If you wish to call them 'different' crimes, go ahead, but if that is so, then simple add my third(?) nth class degree of murder, or assault, or burning. The fact remains that each crime is defined by the perps intent, but each is a crime defined by intent.

As to your 2nd point, you once again remove your response from the context of our laws as written. An exposed Roman baby was no crime at all. For us, it's quite different, and that difference is merely societal bias. 1st degree murder requires premeditated intent in our society but is meaningless in Rome's. Our laws imply that 'intent' is a mitigating factor that rests upon nothing but agreement. Intent in one case can't logically be tossed away for your convenience.

As the guy said,
You have a right to your opinion, but not your own facts.

My thinking here is that if there is no homophobe, the gay guy doesn't get punched in the nose.

And yet, there he is, getting punched in the nose. And the punch isn't some random act of unkindness meted out by an indifferent universe. It is an intentional act undertaken out of what we're agreeing is homophobia–hatred of someone for his membership in a class (go ahead and call the people who are getting punched in the nose privileged if you think that's what they are) and directed at some random schmuck who just happens to be within arm's reach of the hater.

Call me a liberal, but I think the gay guy getting punched in the nose by someone we're agreeing is a homophobe is worse than the gay guy not getting punched in the nose at all.

I don't have any problem calling a crime conjured up out of hatred worse than no crime at all.

And would the guy we're agreeing is a homophobe really get ten to twenty? If so, I think that's out of line. But if he got a larger fine and a longer suspended sentence, I would say justice has been done.

My acceptance of degrees of murder does not in any way rest on accepting “ingrained bias.” I can commit first or second degree murder on any neighbor, family member, co-worker without any type of ingrained bias. I might not need to know anything about them except for some incident which annoyed me, or even a case of mistaken identity. I simply don't accept your premise and your assumption that my definitions are something beyond what I've stated.

Why did he do it? The first dog walker had let his dog poop on the grass without picking it up. Turns out that it's a pet peeve of the second dog walker and he's got a short temper. Now the cop has to arrest dog walker number two.

If the cop charges the homophobe with a different crime, spends more on the trial and sends him to jail longer, what does that say about the rights and protection of dog walker number one? He is getting less than the gay guy and losing his equal protection simply because he failed to be gay.

In the end, it's not fair to dog walker number one, and that's all I've been saying all along. It's not equal protection and the crimes were just the same.

“HemmD makes the extremely useful point about the differences between first degree murder, second degree murder and manslaughter. Are motive and intent in play when examining these different crimes? Of course! They are not only useful in locating the proper suspect, but in defining which crime was committed! It's true that somebody winds up dead in each case, but they are still three very different crimes, each of which carries its own range of potential punishments. But again. motive and intent were used to define the crime, they were not part of the crime.

Sorry jazz, but you're playing it both ways. 1st and 2nd are merely differentiated by the motive of the perp; their usefulness if finding that perp is a non sequitur. If motive or intent are the only difference “in defining which crime was committed,” you just admitted that motive or intent defines a a degree of crime. As I said earlier, hate crimes go exactly to the degree of crime committed. They are insidious because the crime is committed not because of what the individual has or does, the crime is committed because of who he is.

You also side stepped the “ingrained bias” argument in the same post; your acceptence of degrees of murder rests on that. You wish to make the crimes, burning garbage and burning crosses the same; but in the same breath, you wish to make 'intent' a criteria to classify murder. Give into both or give up both. Just frame “murder by reason of hate crime” as another degree of murder, or assault, or illegal burning. If you don't, your own logic rescinds the 'intent' criteria for degrees of murder.

Right?“

EXACTLY! Now you've got it and we may be on the verge of agreeing! The detective would absolutely do better questioning the third guy because there's a good possible motive there! And once he finishes investigating, he find that the other two guys saw him do it, are credible witnesses, and he makes the arrest.

Now… what does he charge the third guy with? Simple assault, which generally gets a fine and a suspended jail term? Or simple assault while hating gays which gets ten to twenty years?

Yes, I know it's far, far worse, just the same as you do. But that shouldn't amount to a hill of beans in court. You still have to show the damages and prove who did them.

Are you kidding me?

You're saying that even though you know it's a far, far worse crime, the worseness of it shouldn't matter?

Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I think worse crimes should get worse punishments.

And I don't have any problem seeing worse damage done to the family with cross.

A gay man gets punched in the nose. A detective is nearby and sees three men in the area. All of them had the opportunity and each appears physically strong enough to overpower the gay man. Two of the men are there walking their dogs as they do every day. The third is a known homophobe. If I'm the detective, I think I'm going to have better luck chatting with the third guy.

Right?

“Burning a cross is much worse than burning a car.“

See? You know that! And I know that! Any normal, marginally aware person knows it. And we all feel it. But now it's time for us to leave what we know in our hearts and what we feel behind and step into a court of law. Show me your damages. You both had somebody trespassing on your property. You both had some object brought onto your property and set afire, causing damage to your lawn. Both of the suspects likely broke some local ordinances regarding outdoor fires without a burn permit.

Anything beyond that is speculation. You seek to charge the cross burner with the crimes of thousands of violent bigots over decades of injustice. You blame him or her for the justifiable fear and trepidation felt by black Americans, when that person may have never done a single thing before except hang out on the Stormwatch bulletin boards and use racial epithets at the corner bar.

The family with the burnt cross can show no real damages from the incident beyond those suffered by the family with the burnt Buick in their yard. The perpetrator with the cross did nothing more than setting something on fire on somebody else's property. He/she never lynched anyone or whipped them or tarred and feathered them. He/she burned a piece of wood. Show us the actual damages from the specific incident which has brought the actors in this play into court which differ than those arising from the Buick incident. And I mean the real, demonstrable damages caused by the hand of the perpetrator… not everything ever done by those of his ilk.

Yes, I know it's far, far worse, just the same as you do. But that shouldn't amount to a hill of beans in court. You still have to show the damages and prove who did them.

Thanks for replying, but maybe some definitions would really help me understand why motive, intent and thoughts should be discarded as somehow used up and no longer important or needed to complete the legal process.

I don't see why they should be discarded before the process is completed and I don't think they are discarded in practice.